Though a beginning shaper, I’ve noticed that the Clark blanks seem to vary in their quality. Not so much in the density of the foam, but in the skin of the blank and recently in the blank/stringer glue up. After templating I noticed the stringer seemed to be offset an inch or so. These are poured and glued up by hand right? So I guess they are subject to these variations. Is this really common? How does Walker foam compare? Stretch
Yes there are variations, but up to an inch very doubtful. They constantly check there saw and each blank gets checked before it gets sent out. If the stringer is off by a certain amount, it becomes a 2nd or reject. They have a pretty full proof way of measuring. Probably the way you are measuring. Also none of the plugs are perfect. Plugs made in the last several years are better than they use to be because Clark has a bunch of new methods for fixing plugs they recieve from shapers. But a lot of the plugs, with their individual faults stay popular for years. A few of the noses can throw the inexperienced shaper off making the cuts look way off. A few years ago clark gave a finished plug to several of the big name shapers to ask them where they thought the high points and low spots were, they all came back with different answers. Kind of scary how everyone can read a blank differently. Because of set ups of rooms, lighting, and our own eyes we seem to all see different things. Skin varies for numerous reasons including every day weather changes. Glue ups are done on hydrolic presses by teams of workers. There is a human touch here that can change from day to day, but they seem to do a pretty good job. Also individual pieces of wood, and rocker can effect glue up and twist. If you try to put in to much rocker or take out too much rocker, the wood will force it to twist in one direction or the other. Some guys who are real fussy about center lines create there own center line. I have found Walker to be much less consistant in everything about the blanks, especially the glue ups. Can you say twist? For instance, the shaping machines hate Walker for his inconsistant glue ups, and would rather use Clark even with Grubby bagging on them all the time. The Walker factory is much cruder, and the results show. The thing has caught fire twice since re-opening, kind of scary. However they do have great plugs for the old school longboard styles and guys who are very good at shaping a block of foam seem to have good success with the product. Jono
Jono is on the money, Clarks rockers are on the money 99% of the time. Walker seems to pick up the closest piece of wood and glue it, crooked most of the time, but the foam is soooooooo easy to finish shape. I did get a 12’3" Clark for Plumeria, that most likely was going off while gluing, because one of the rail sections was about a half inch higher. These are not the norm in Clarks as the quality control is rigid. I find that the center cuts are off quite a bit, but when you measure the center in increments from tail to nose, then snap a chalk line down it, the left to right sides of the blank are NOT symetrical. Center lines are rather unimportant, unless it is a very crowned blank and then it BECOMES A PROBLEM.
juno, you sound like a very savvy guy who knows boatloads about blanks , but i can make a stronger board with walker so thats what i use. both make a good product but there is lots of give and take when choosing a blank. i use walker for this one reason: the foam is the same consistancy through and through, they aren’t soft in the middle (i’m not talking about pour variations - both have those). you can’t “over shape” them (ie: if you want to shape a wafer thin board then thats ok). yes, clark has tight controls on rocker consistancy but the trade off is not worth it if i get a soft deck and less of a resin bond. my belief is that clark works really well for close tolerance work but if you have to cut into the blank much then walker gets the nod. i don’t believe there any difference with twisting.
oops, that’s jono - sorry
Gene, I am sure Clark Foam would rather have anyone use Walker if they are going to overshape. This has been a repeat subject in Gordon’s letters. Personally I like the density gradient on Clark Blanks, and if I am going to overshape, I go up in density. There are a lot of small manufactures that use Clark Foams rocker program with a lot of success without having to overshape. They actually really cater to small customers. The more custom, the better. And if used correctly you can make a lighter board at at least the same strength as a walker with a Clark Foam blank. Having a density gradient in a core is actually a good thing. The center of a core is a stupid place to be adding extra weight as it is in the “Neutral Axis” of the composite structure. All the physical stress is out towards the skins where the blank is most dense and the center really does not have any stress. Jono
Ah, there was a time when such mundane things concerned me. I know that many disagree with my methods but I am fortunate enough to only shape perfect blanks of my own designs. Life is good.
Greg, have you seen the foam being sold by Lanie Shuler? a closed cell styro of various weight & density. I shaped a few & was interested to know what the other shapers thought of that material. http://dreamflagproductions.com
yes jono, we disagree on this one. i’m stuck on walker and i stated my case. no matter how you justify that mushy core it still isn’t a good thing. overshaping is not a crime. the term shouldn’t exist, it makes a manufacturing flaw sound like it’s the shapers fault. going up in density doesn’t help, the classic wieght has the same mush in the middle. i’ll stick with walker, it fits my application. as i said before, clark works great for close tolerance work.
I’m with Gene on his Walker opinion. It’s just superior stuff for anything but close tolerance thruster work.
Thanks for the knowledge on blanks. I am super concerned with overshaping when I do thin, blady longboards out of say, the Clark 9’9 or 10’1 Y. I take most of the foam off the bottom, to the point where I am concerned IT may be overshaped rather than the deck. Like I said I am a relative novice and only have experience with Clark. I’m hoping you guys could suggest Walker alternatives to the 9’9, 9’1 Y and 10’1 Y. Basically the best blanks for thinner longboards. Thanks- Stretch
Actually I never said overshaping was a crime, what I meant was if you were going to dive into the deck of a blank Clark would probably rather have you use a Walker. As for a lower density core, basic sandwich construction tells us the center of the sandwich has a “Neutral Axis”. Heck this is why Surtechs and most vacuum bagged sailboards use pvc on their skins. Yes I am saying the extra weight in the center of a Walker blank is excess weight if you are not diving into the deck of your blank. This is proven fact, not fiction. Personally if I made boards in the style of someone like Paul G, I would probably be a bigger fan of Walker. That Clark 99 is a freak of nature. We all like to ride different stlye boards, what floats my boats certainly doesn’t float someone elses boat. However I do take offense to the dump Walker calls a factory, scary. I guess you can get away with that kind of dump in Wilmington. Like I said before, the thing has been shut down twice due to fire since reopening. Jono
Who the hell are you to tell any one the Walker Factory is a dump? Things are very orderly and take place in a small place.
I guess it was a bad hair day the two times I ventured into the Walker factory. Jono
I guess what Paul and Gene are saying that shapers should be allowed to shape. I couldn’t agree more. The foam we use has no gradient and it’s a nice thing when you are shaping TRUE custom stuff. A lot is made on this site about the superiority of custom boards and about how the molded board is going to hurt the design process and progression. Does anyone here think that close tolerant blanks have done some of that already? Does anyone else think that many of today’s shapers rely on the blank coming “preshaped” a bit too much? How many posers are just following the lines of modern blank design and wouldn’t know a creative thought if it hit 'em flush in the face? Does anyone feel that this has forced surfboard design to be a bit predictable and not quite as creative as it was in the past? We do cut our blanks from a block. We have complete design freedom to make anything we want. We don’t have to wait for Rusty to make a new plug to avoid “overshaping.” I know I may be old as dirt but there was a time when shaping meant putting planer to foam and creating something unique. I personally see a whole lot of fine sanded 6’5"R’s in the retail racks today.
Greg, Are you using a polystyrene foam? If so can you tell us a bit about it. Thanks in advance,
…I like Clark’s “A” series blanks in blue or green.I don’t use the closer tolerance blanks a whole lot,I like to create,I see a board in the blank,not on the surface.Herb
You mean they make more than 65R’s?
I could not agree with the statement from Gene any more and Jono any less.I prefer Walker to Clark foam for a number of reasons. First the way I like to shape my boards and the channel and concaves that I make could not be done with clark blanks. Second customer service,I get treated like I am somebody even though I am a small quanity shaper . They helped me find my glass shop even before I started doing business with. Third my boards feel soild when they’re done yes this has to do with the glass job to but I have boards shaped with both companies foam and the walker boards feel more soild.Walkers Old Man foam rules for semi guns,classic longboards and the fish. Plus whose going to argue with Hap Jacobs and John Peck. Thanks to all, Rick http://www.ancientartsurfboards.com
Polystyrene is my personal first choice. About two years ago a new technology sprung up from Europe called EDRO. EDRO machines are a new computerized version of the old EPS (expanded polystyrene) press technology. It makes an EPS foam with significantly enhanced strength and fusion that doesn’t leak when dinged. The first EDRO machines installed in the US were done here in Florida. They are now across the US with two in Fl. and at least two in California. This technology takes polystyrenes strength to weight advantage and combines it with a foam that doesn’t leak or delaminate. Another question in this tread was about Shulers foam. This is an extruded polystyrene (XPS). I was the Dow distributor for a similar product about 12 years ago. The problem we had then, and the problem that continues to plague it today, is delamination. This is caused by the fact that a significant amount of blowing agent is trapped in the cells during production. Blowing agent expands under heat. That’s what makes it work. 95% of the blowing agent in EPS foam is lost during the pre-expansion process. 95% of what’s left is lost in the molding or press cycle. With urethane the chemicals are being changed during the polymerization process and you end up with only CO2 left in the cells. But with XPS the cells are left filled with blowing agent gases. When these cells are damaged, and the gas released is then heated, a delamination or bubble forms under the glass. Also these foams are copolymerized with polyethylene which NOTHING sticks to. This makes the problem even worse. This problem has existed with XPS since Bob Simmons first used it in the 50’s. Also the new Solomon blank is based on an XPS foam so don’t go holding your breath on that one either. While it’s true that these foams are superior as far as being water tight, today I’ll go with EDRO EPS.